Body Fat and Heart Disease

Training
321

I haven’t read all 13 pages because of all of the back and forth but has blood pressure been included in this discussion? I would imagine that blood pressure is a much better predictor of cardio vascular disease than how fat someone is. Of course someone who is fatter is bound to have higher blood pressure but not necessarily so.

I wouldn’t think that being fat in and of itself is an indicator especially in people who aren’t obese.

james

this might have already been covered and if so I apologize

322

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I haven’t read all 13 pages because of all of the back and forth but has blood pressure been included in this discussion? I would imagine that blood pressure is a much better predictor of cardio vascular disease than how fat someone is. Of course someone who is fatter is bound to have higher blood pressure but not necessarily so.

I wouldn’t think that being fat in and of itself is an indicator especially in people who aren’t obese.

james

this might have already been covered and if so I apologize[/quote]

Good post. My blood pressure was normal and fine at nearly 300lbs. I had to get tested regularly in the military. Yes, I would go by that and exercise before focusing on someone’s body fat alone unless they were obese. That is how we do it in the clinic.

323

Also puts one at risk for diabetes.

324

[quote]anonym wrote:
“In multiple regression analyses of the four fat variables, only intra-abdominal adipose tissue area significantly predicted the levels of six metabolic risk factors: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting concentrations of capillary whole blood glucose, serum HDL cholesterol, serum triglyceride, and PAI-1.”

Third reference posted.

This study looked at:

It found that only those with high intra-abdominal obesity

…which means patients with high blood pressure, syndrome x and high cholesterol or low HDL…all life style indicators again.

This does not show that someone at “12%” is healthier than someone with a higher body fat.

It shows that patients with high intra-abdominal often also fall in line with findings of:

325

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for diabetes. [/quote]

Obesity does. I was not obese and my blood sugar was fine.

326

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m just asking hypothetical questions. I really have no clue either.

I mean, “don’t get 100lbs over your target lean weight” seems like a good rule in general.

  • Not having the fat cells in the first place seems to be better.
  • Minimizing the arterial plaque that accumulates in the first place seems to be better.
  • Having a decent cardiovascular system seems to be better than not (ok, that was poorly worded… maybe “actively and progressively training the cardiovascular system” is better than not training it)
  • Having more muscle mass… in general… seems to be beneficial to everyone.

I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]

I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.

I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.[/quote]

That’s what I meant, but the heart health issue is a good point.

The heart will have to work less on a person who’s 5’11 and weighs 130 lbs than one who weighs 175, because there’s literally more area to pump blood through.[/quote]

Which means that adding size, even muscle mass, is adding risk, though again, with the law of dimishing returns most likely applying.

327

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m just asking hypothetical questions. I really have no clue either.

I mean, “don’t get 100lbs over your target lean weight” seems like a good rule in general.

  • Not having the fat cells in the first place seems to be better.
  • Minimizing the arterial plaque that accumulates in the first place seems to be better.
  • Having a decent cardiovascular system seems to be better than not (ok, that was poorly worded… maybe “actively and progressively training the cardiovascular system” is better than not training it)
  • Having more muscle mass… in general… seems to be beneficial to everyone.

I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]

I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.

I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.[/quote]

That’s what I meant, but the heart health issue is a good point.

The heart will have to work less on a person who’s 5’11 and weighs 130 lbs than one who weighs 175, because there’s literally more area to pump blood through.[/quote]

Which means that adding size, even muscle mass, is adding risk, though again, with the law of dimishing returns most likely applying. [/quote]

This is genetic.

328

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for diabetes. [/quote]

Obesity does. I was not obese and my blood sugar was fine.[/quote]

Obesity is defined as 25% bodyfat or more.

329

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for diabetes. [/quote]

Obesity does. I was not obese and my blood sugar was fine.[/quote]

Obesity is defined as 25% bodyfat or more. [/quote]

I was blood tested in the military regularly. At no point was my blood pressure high or was I at risk of diabetes.

Training almost everyday has more to do with findings than your body fat alone. This has been explained to you.

330

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m just asking hypothetical questions. I really have no clue either.

I mean, “don’t get 100lbs over your target lean weight” seems like a good rule in general.

  • Not having the fat cells in the first place seems to be better.
  • Minimizing the arterial plaque that accumulates in the first place seems to be better.
  • Having a decent cardiovascular system seems to be better than not (ok, that was poorly worded… maybe “actively and progressively training the cardiovascular system” is better than not training it)
  • Having more muscle mass… in general… seems to be beneficial to everyone.

I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]

I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.

I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.[/quote]

That’s what I meant, but the heart health issue is a good point.

The heart will have to work less on a person who’s 5’11 and weighs 130 lbs than one who weighs 175, because there’s literally more area to pump blood through.[/quote]

Which means that adding size, even muscle mass, is adding risk, though again, with the law of dimishing returns most likely applying. [/quote]

Although from what I understand, there are additional benefits from the additional muscle from a metabolic standpoint, that may offset that particular risk.

But I’m speculating here, and relying on ideas and concepts I can’t back up. My memory is very vague on this.

331

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I haven’t read all 13 pages because of all of the back and forth but has blood pressure been included in this discussion? I would imagine that blood pressure is a much better predictor of cardio vascular disease than how fat someone is. Of course someone who is fatter is bound to have higher blood pressure but not necessarily so.

I wouldn’t think that being fat in and of itself is an indicator especially in people who aren’t obese.

james

this might have already been covered and if so I apologize[/quote]

You probably missed this… n=1, but some quantitative data regarding blood pressure and training.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/body_fat_and_heart_disease?id=5685074&pageNo=10#5687856

332

[quote]anonym wrote:

“Abdominal obesity, due to intra-abdominal adiposity, drives the progression of multiple cardiometabolic risk factors independently of body mass index.”

[/quote]

Fourth reference.

This found that:

They then wrote:

[quote]
Lifestyle modification remains the initial intervention of choice for this population,[/quote]

This means that obese patients who don’t exercise are at greatest risk…once again not pointing to any fat gain alone being a risk factor but OBESITY AND A WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE OVER 90CM.

333

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for diabetes. [/quote]

Obesity does. I was not obese and my blood sugar was fine.[/quote]

Obesity is defined as 25% bodyfat or more. [/quote]

I was blood tested in the military regularly. At no point was my blood pressure high or was I at risk of diabetes.

Training almost everyday has more to do with findings than your body fat alone. This has been explained to you.[/quote]

You brought up your own bodyfat when I made a general statement. Overweight puts one at risk for DM, not just obesity.

Also, because you brought your body composition up: there are photos in which it’s reasonable to estimate your bodyfat at 25% or more, particularly the one you said you took after a large mean and in which you were relaxing your posture in before-and-after supplement-advertisement style.

334

Also puts one at risk for certain cancers.

335

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
You brought up your own bodyfat when I made a general statement. Overweight puts one at risk for DM, not just obesity. [/quote]

No, BMI is used in most of those studies so there is usually more at work than just “overweight”. Every bodybuilder on a pro stage is “overweight”.

[quote]Also, because you brought your body composition up: there are photos in which it’s reasonable to estimate your bodyfat at 25% or more, particularly the one you said you took after a large mean and in which you were relaxing your posture in before-and-after supplement-advertisement style.
[/quote]

This means nothing. In fact, if you really claim I am that fat, the fact that there was no disease present supports my statements more than your own as I was both “overweight and supposedly obese” according to you but healthy.

336

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for certain cancers. [/quote]

Being “overweight” alone does not put you at risk for cancer.

337

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m just asking hypothetical questions. I really have no clue either.

I mean, “don’t get 100lbs over your target lean weight” seems like a good rule in general.

  • Not having the fat cells in the first place seems to be better.
  • Minimizing the arterial plaque that accumulates in the first place seems to be better.
  • Having a decent cardiovascular system seems to be better than not (ok, that was poorly worded… maybe “actively and progressively training the cardiovascular system” is better than not training it)
  • Having more muscle mass… in general… seems to be beneficial to everyone.

I wouldn’t say those are "FACT"s, but they do seem to be decent guidelines.[/quote]

I’m not sure that last part is true, least as far as heart health goes. I seem to remember some studies that suggested that all size increases requires the heart to work harder, regardless of the size composition, and if true then no matter how lean you stay there will be some increased stress on the heart.

I’ll try to find that later. [/quote]
I think what LoRez was getting at was that having some muscle on a person is good.
Example: a 5’11 guy who weighs 175 would generally be healthier if he was 175 @ 10% vs 175 @ 18%
I took his statment to mean something like that and not being 240 but I could be interpreting it wrong.[/quote]

That’s what I meant, but the heart health issue is a good point.

The heart will have to work less on a person who’s 5’11 and weighs 130 lbs than one who weighs 175, because there’s literally more area to pump blood through.[/quote]

Which means that adding size, even muscle mass, is adding risk, though again, with the law of dimishing returns most likely applying. [/quote]

Although from what I understand, there are additional benefits from the additional muscle from a metabolic standpoint, that may offset that particular risk.

But I’m speculating here, and relying on ideas and concepts I can’t back up. My memory is very vague on this.[/quote]

I suspect you are right, but it points out that its really hard to say thing X is the absolutely best thing for every possible risk. We are all going to have to accept some risk, in some manner or we are going to be in a continual race to be very lean and small.

338

[quote]anonym wrote:

" In this regard, body fat distribution, especially visceral adipose tissue accumulation, has been found to be a major correlate of a cluster of diabetogenic, atherogenic, prothrombotic and proinflammatory metabolic abnormalities referred to as the metabolic syndrome…Evidence suggests that this dysmetabolic profile is predictive of a substantially increased risk of coronary heart disease even in the absence of classical risk factors.

Fifth reference:
This study found that there was an

…which again means obese patients were looked at. They found that:

…which means that patients with high visceral adipose tissue accumulation are at greater risk.

This again does not show that someone is less healthy just because they are carrying more fat than someone else. It means patient with high visceral adipose tissue accumulation are at greater risk for disease…something we already know.

I likely will not go through the rest of your sources as the first FIVE did not show anything but that obese people who are inactive are at greater risk of disease and did NOT show that any fat gain at all is “unhealthy”.

339

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Also puts one at risk for certain cancers. [/quote]

Being “overweight” alone does not put you at risk for cancer.[/quote]

I didn’t say alone. It’s ONE risk factor among others. Same with the other two conditions we speak of here.

340

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
You brought up your own bodyfat when I made a general statement. Overweight puts one at risk for DM, not just obesity. [/quote]

No, BMI is used in most of those studies so there is usually more at work than just “overweight”. Every bodybuilder on a pro stage is “overweight”.

[quote]Also, because you brought your body composition up: there are photos in which it’s reasonable to estimate your bodyfat at 25% or more, particularly the one you said you took after a large mean and in which you were relaxing your posture in before-and-after supplement-advertisement style.
[/quote]

This means nothing. In fact, if you really claim I am that fat, the fact that there was no disease present supports my statements more than your own as I was both “overweight and supposedly obese” according to you but healthy.[/quote]

“At risk” doesn’t apply certainty. We know this.

Yeah, I know BMI doesn’t apply to those who regularly lift or athletes.

However considering most peopel do not regularly lift or involve themselves in sports, it’s a good tool.

I’ve done THOUSANDS of assesments in healthcare setting in my job and I’ve yet to calculate a BMI of 26 or more BEFORE meeting the resident/patient and then upon seeing them realize it’s a muscular, lean individual. I’ve NEVER seen one. This says something for a tool to use GENERALLY.